Michigan Votes Forum

But it's OK to spit on Veterans and and active duty soldiers call them names, damage their property etc, correct? 

albaby2:

But it's OK to spit on Veterans and and active duty soldiers call them names, damage their property etc, correct? 

Frankly, I have never met anyone who has actually received that kind of treatment as a veteran or member of the military.  And I served in the Vietnam War.

In any event, I am against this kind of legislation.  We should punish the commitment of crimes, not what motivates them.

Aggred! We dont need to create special classes of victims-a crime is a crime and what the perpetrator is thinking at the time should have nothing to do with it. This is just a small step toward hate speech crimes-and then we end up with the govt controling what we say. . and eventually,what we think. I dont need govt to do this-I can think for myself. We have enough criminal code to sink entire forests-lets stop witht the feel-good laws and actually work toward having a workable society.

 This is just another example of people wanting the government to raise them and tell them what to do.  When has a crime been committed against a person you like? Does it matter why you did the crime? I know I would be just as angry if someone shot me because I am female as I would if they shot me because they wanted my money. We have serious problems in this State - and the best the govenment can do is make more things crimes?

Isn't this the same as a "hate" crime?  Which is the same as a "crime"??  We already have laws against crimes.  Let's enforce them.

So then Truckingal, it's ok to call a black person a F&%ING N@##$R when you are kicking the sh*\t out of them or shooting them? Or how about shouting any one of the many racial slurs when someone is chasing them with a club?

I think that would be creating special rights for a special group of people, wouldn't you?

So if I read your comment correctly, then we should take away the the special penalitites for Burning a Cross on someone's front yard? Becasue that is what you are saying in your comment.

Oh and how about, the law that restricts your speed to 10mph below the posted speed limit because you have a commercial vehicle.

Maybe you can see just how dumb your comment is..... but you are entitled to it. Thanks to the constitution of the United States that has been used to protect some and deny others.

 OTRDriver - No, it is not ok to kick the carp out of anyone - regardless of what you are yelling at the time. And No, it is not ok to damage people's property - no matter what you are doing, burning a cross or burning a bush. As for the commercial vehicle - I do not think there should be any speed limit for anyone - personally I believe that the CRIME of hurting a person, killing a person or damaging property should be punished. The thoughts leading up to the crime are pretty irrelevant - for example if a sober kills your kid are you less angry than if a drunk does it? It the kid less dead?

This bill is just one more way for legislators to feel they are doing something - no law has stopped a person from doing anything they set their mind to.  If it did deter them from crime there would be no more child molesters, no more bank robbers, no more antisocial behavior of any type.

 A criminal act against another's person or property is a crime.  We do not need to have labels of race, religion or any other designated "special identity."   It should not matter whether you are blonde, brunette, or a red-head.  It should not matter whether you are disabled, Black, Chinese, or Latin decent.  What matters and only matters is that one individual committed a physical offense against another, thus violating their individual rights not to be harmed. No one has a right to violate or harm another person or their property.     Period!!!!  

 So you don't feel that an assault against a disabled person is more heinous, cowardly crime than one against a person who is able to fight back or flee? I agree with some of what you say, but to say all crimes are equal is nonsense. Would you feel that the rape of a 5 year old is no different than a rape of a 35 year old?

Cowardliness on the part of the perpetrator has nothing to do with the severity of a crime, any more than does cowardliness on the part of a victim.  I am not at all certain, either, that rape of a 5-year old child is automatically a more serious matter than rape of a 35-year old.  Or that an assault on a disabled person is automatically a more heinous crime than an assault on a person who could fight back or flee.  Let's can the emotions and discuss realities of material harm inflicted both on the victim and on society.

I think the effort to "create 'bias-motivated' crime" plays more to emotions than it does to material harm inflicted.  The law should be cold and unemotional.  That is how we achieve fairness, first, as a giant step toward doing justice.   

So you say can the emotions and focus on "material harm"? So in other words, if the material harm (bruises, tissue tear in case of rape of a child) will heal itself, then no crime was committed and therefore emotional damage should be ignored? Perhaps you mean loss of property by material damage? That would make even less sense. I'm not for creating a special class of victim, but I am for creating special class of crimes. For instance, there are now laws on the books for the abuse of the elderly. Should that be omitted?

 There is an emotional side to the law as written. There is already crimes that are more severe or less so based on the victim. We do not need more confusion in the law. If you rape, then you go to prison for life. If you rape a victim that is less able to defend themselves then you go to prison for life. If you beat someone you go to jail. There are classes of crime - and the victim should be taken into account - as well as the number of times you have committed a crime, the amount of damage. What I am AGAINST is making a crime worse because you did not like the person. I say again - how many times are crimes really committed against people we like? Does the fact you raped or murdered someone really change because you liked them? If it does, why not make incest or molestation of a friend or relative no crime at all? The fact is that the justice system is for keeping the public safe. Some would say for teaching offenders not to do it again - but that does not work. What this country needs is less people worried about how the perpetrator felt about the person and more about how the VICTIM was injured. The injury does not change because you liked or did not like the victim. And it does not change just because you hated the victim. Why make a new crime for not liking people. It is a slippery slope to make thought crimes and infer the intent of the perpetrator.

 It's not really making it a new crime if you don't like the victim. It's making it a new crime if you take action on your hatred of the persons race, sexual orientation etc, Something the person has no control of. Their are many hate crimes where perps go out looking for a victim because of their race etc. I too, on't think much of making special penalties for those who attack someone because of their race etc, but I think even less of someone who would attack someone for those reasons. By the way, I am a white, straight male and am aware hatred exists is all races, sexes and sexual orientation. It's when you injure another because you hate and make known the fact that is the reason you attacked them that makes it a crime and should be punished accordingly. A crime of passion is not the same as a crime fueled by hatred.

 FreeSpeaker - You are exactly right.  That is why the symbol of Justice is shown wearing a blindfold, because she is unbiased, not moved by emotion or prejudice. "Justice"  stands for the Rule of Law, not by whether you are black, white, elderly, handicapped or of a particular religion.  She stands for equality under the law and if a crime is committed against another then the punishment should fit the act.  She is telling judges and attorneys that she expects them to follow the Rule of Law, and not to have their personal biases supercede the law.

 The conviction should fit the crime.  That is how the Rule of Law stands.  If the crime is henious, in other words an individual is raped, disabled, against a defenseless child or elderly person then the law allows the book to be thrown at them.  It should not be based on someone's race, creed, monetary circumstances or sexual preference.

The crimes are often based on hatred of a person because of their  race, creed,sexual preference etc. If a person is beaten or otherwise assaulted because of their race, etc, you feel that should be treated the same as a bar room brawl?-Just send the victim and perp home? Justice is blind, not stupid. The blindfold is symbolic of equal justice before the law. It does not mean that justice is blind to the facts.

albaby2:

The crimes are often based on hatred of a person because of their  race, creed,sexual preference etc. If a person is beaten or otherwise assaulted because of their race, etc, you feel that should be treated the same as a bar room brawl?-Just send the victim and perp home? Justice is blind, not stupid. The blindfold is symbolic of equal justice before the law. It does not mean that justice is blind to the facts.

You are equating opposition to legislatively creating "bias-motivated" crimes as being "soft" on criminal behavior in general.  That is a completely false assertion.

albaby2 --   "She [Liberty] stands for equality under the law and if a crime is committed against another then the punishment should fit the act."    Do you understand that sentence?  It means that if you harm a child, an elderly person, or handicapped person--  someone who is obviously of lesser  size, strength and agility then the punishment should be greater.  If more than one person attacks a lone individual -- then the punishment should be greater.  We have a U.S. Constitution that is easy to interpret.  There is not more than one way to interpret it.  We have the Rule of Law, and we are still under the Common Law. If  common sense is to prevail and if you believe that we common sense judges and juries who believe in the rights of the individual then they should rule justly and sensibly on what punishment should be rendered upon the guilty.  Vincent Chin was murdered because two idiots thought he was Japanese -- the jury and the judge threw the book at the guilty one's before there was any talk of Hate Crime laws.

 inform4. The hate crime laws specify conditions that define a hate crime. The Chin case was an example of a good judge and jury, but the justice system doesn'[t always work that well. O.J. Simpson is an example. Juries can be rigged to give desired results and I don't believe this "Equallity under the law" is applied equally. Do you feel a black on white assault would be treated the same in Mississippi as in Maine?

About the remark, "We have a Constitution that is easy to interpret. There is not more than one way to interpret it". Then why do we need a Supreme Court? Why has the Second Amendment been an issue for decades?  Why are Presidents eager to appoint members to the Supreme Court? If the Constitution is so easy to interpret, why are there so many 5-4 decisions?

So far, I have not seen persuasive evidence that crimes motivated by bias are more harmful to the victim or society than comparable crimes committed for other reasons, and so warrant special treatment.

Those of us who believe a crime committed against a person or a person’s property is a serious matter in and of itself do not need to defend that position.  We are virtually universally supported in that belief, which is reflected in existing statutes.

The position that must be defended – or justified – here is legislatively creating a “bias motivated” crime. 

Why is a crime that is believed to be motivated by “bias” on its face any different in its result (seriousness) than a crime motivated by, say, greed, or what we might call “just plain meanness”?  Why is such a crime more reprehensible and thus worthy of greater punishment?

 There are so many 5-4 decisions because we have progressive liberals on the court that don't bother to interpret the laws according to the Constitution, but instead decide the laws according to their agenda.  Such as the case in Eminent Domain with good ol' Ruth Bader Ginzberg and her colleagues who went beyond the bounds of our Constitutional protections and failed to follow what our founders have intended in their writings.  Progressives are systematically destroying our Constitutional protections because they do not believe they are relevant.

We cannot create perfection or Utopia in the world or in our sovereign country due to man not being a perfect being, nor are our legislators.  We also should not pass laws that try to supercede the Common Law, the Rule of Law or our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  If we allow those in government to stay within our Constitutional boundaries -- then why have a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Abuse of the law can and will take place under the "Hate/Bias Laws" that our so-called representatives want to pass.  Just as violations have taken place due to the passage of RICCO.  If our U.S. Constitution is constantly going to be turned on its head due to those who take an Oath of Office to uphold, preserve and restore it and then abrogate, ignore and aborting it  -- then we will no longer have the freedoms and liberties that our founding documents have bestowed on us to protect our "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" -- such as Freedom of Speech.

I was raised not to call or use derogatory names because of someone's race, religion or standing in life.  Yes, we have morons that will always exist who are prejudice and bigoted -- and they will use derogatory names against another.  Yes, name calling hurts those who they are slung at -- but, you consider the source and move on.  If those said-same moron physically harms anothers person or destroys or takes anothers property then they should be prosecuted and convicted to the full extent of the crime that has been committed.

We will never have "perfected" juries or judges due to their human flaws, but we do not pass laws that deny anothers individual rights in order to punish the few that are innocent and law-abiding.  We have also experienced those newly passed laws that give "special", unlawful criteria abuse the innocent.   That is just what happens when we have laws passed that supercede the Common Law, the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution.  We have the only Constitution in the world that protects the rights of the individual. Once we lose and destroy it we will have mob rule, along with a dictatorial government which will and has been expanding and growing beyond the boundaries of our U.S. Constitution and its protections.  It has been called "Big Brother."

Why is a crime that is believed to be motivated by “bias” on its face any different in its result (seriousness) than a crime motivated by, say, greed, or what we might call “just plain meanness”?  Why is such a crime more reprehensible and thus worthy of greater punishment?

You make a good point. Those who hate another soley because of race, gender, etc are mentally ill and maybe the solution is to treat them as such.  The motivation for hate crimes is not money, but hatred/ Their are organizations, black, white, that promote hatred and have eager and willing followers. Some hide behind the banner of religious organizations. I really don't see a problem with hate crimes if they are properly defined and enforced equally regardless of the race etc.of the perp vs victim

 I agree with you on the Emminent Domain issue. But the liberals were Joined by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee. Kennedy also believes that foreign laws should be a consideration when interpreting our Constitution.

"

I was raised not to call or use derogatory names because of someone's race, religion or standing in life.  Yes, we have morons that will always exist who are prejudice and bigoted -- and they will use derogatory names against another.  Yes, name calling hurts those who they are slung at -- but, you consider the source and move on.  If those said-same moron physically harms anothers person or destroys or takes anothers property then they should be prosecuted and convicted to the full extent of the crime that has been committed."

So you feel only physical injury and crimes against property should be prosecuted? That name calling etc does not injure a person? That such actions do not warrant remedial action. Example-You call someone a derogatory name-they should just move on? What if they objected and kicked your butt? Ah-that's a physical injury and you would call the law, right? You can't legislate love, but you should have recourse against those who injure another out of hate. I have seen little kids called names and chased off of public sidewalks soley because of their race. I could cite several examples that cause me to form my opinion. Much of the racial bias that existed years ago has been eliminated-at least on the surface-and some laws now direct the bias in a different direction( affirmative action etc). Sandra Day O'Connor was in favor of continuing affirmative action for another 25 years to see if a need for it still existed then.

Just last week, I saw a cop car speeding-no lights or siren-and decided to see where it was going. It stopped a young black man who was going thru a white neighborhood verifying addresses for the 2010 Census. Someone called the cops. I saw an elderly white man standing by his garage with what appeared to be a shotgun. A crime-no-but do you feel that the police would have been called if the census taker was white?

 albaby2 -- let's just agree to disagree, because I stand behind what our Founders bestowed on us -- and you stand behind your agenda.  I will no longer discuss this issue again with you because it is nothing but twirling a windmill.

 I agree-but my "agenda" is equality. Hate crime laws apply to everyone. It's been an interesting discussion.  Regards

 It is a waste of time and energy to try to pass a law punishing thoughts.  Just have the law punish crimes and let it go.  How do you prove it?  Based on group identification?  Library books read?  Political parties, or lack thereof? 

Do we really care why someone stole a car?  Whether the victim is a member of a vulnerable class or not doesn't affect what was done. 

Let's not grandstand to various groups to show how politically correct you are.